B
Benadam
Guest
I’m thinking it was even before St Thomas that the soul was described as 'the final cause of the body".
- Status
I
itinerant1
Guest
It is the formal cause acting on a material substrate, which then becomes a living body.
B
Benadam
Guest
What is the material substrate?
D
Detales
Guest
Far too complex, Itinerant1. Naming things has no bearing on knowing what they are. These intellections reveal nothing whatsoever about Soul.
I
itinerant1
Guest
That would be true only for those who are not trained in classical philosophy nor have engaged in metaphysical contemplation of “being”.
I
itinerant1
Guest
The philosophical concept of “matter” is a difficult notion to grasp at first. At the metaphysical level in every generation and corruption, or coming into being and passing away of anything in nature, there is that which persists through the change: prime matter or first matter, which is the material substrate. Prime matter is an agent of change. Prime matter (materia prima) never exists by itself but is recognized by ontological analysis.
Matter is always found informed (materia signata) and is the principle of individuation. The form (eidos, morphe) specifies or determines matter properly disposed to be a particular kind of thing.
In earlier posts, I provided links to Catholic Encyclopedia articles that treat of these philosophical concepts. Most likely, all of this stuff is very confusing at first. That is normal and to be expected.
Some of the articles are not the best place to begin, but at least they are readily available. There are books I recommend as beginning study for anyone interested in learning Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy.
As far as the online articles are concerned, here are some links to fundamental subjects:
**Matter
Form
Hylomorphism
Substance
Accident
Soul
Metaphysics
Ontology
Philosophy
Scholasticism
Thomas Aquinas
Aristotle
**
I
itinerant1
Guest
D
Detales
Guest
That is what I am trying to point out, 1. Training and scholastic understanding of Soul is nothing compared to experience. Information and naming is of the mind, Soul is beyond its grasp. Enumerations of qualities and attributes may help in the refinement of thinking, which is wonderful and to be lauded. But it is not Knowledge of Soul.
G
grannymh
Guest
A couple of ways a soul can be known is by observing its immaterial functions of intellect and will.
D
Detales
Guest
Yes, Grannymh, and it is why I continually advocate the way of Self inquiry. It is not a frivolous statement that has been haded down to us from ages past, that we should “know thyself” (Gnothi seaouton, as it is inscribed on the temple, and in many languages and in many traditions.)
To accept a religion and its tenets habitually as a faith may be a useful start for many, and it is as far as many get. But the deeper meanings of things only pointed to by religion are inaccessible except by strenuous work on one’s self, as exemplified by the Saints and Sages of the ages and all traditions. Simple blind adherence to an acquired faith as is exemplified by most on here is inadequate for the task. Such simple faith only proves the human mind’s prime directive that it must be right at any cost, including “missing the mark,” an original meaning of the word “sin.”
To accept a religion and its tenets habitually as a faith may be a useful start for many, and it is as far as many get. But the deeper meanings of things only pointed to by religion are inaccessible except by strenuous work on one’s self, as exemplified by the Saints and Sages of the ages and all traditions. Simple blind adherence to an acquired faith as is exemplified by most on here is inadequate for the task. Such simple faith only proves the human mind’s prime directive that it must be right at any cost, including “missing the mark,” an original meaning of the word “sin.”
G
grannymh
Guest
There can be many reasons why self inquiry is important. It is also very important that one should use the immaterial powers of the soul, i.e., intellect and will to answer the basic life questions such as: Where do we come from? Where are we going? What is our origin? What is our end?
Blessings,
granny
Spring is God’s message of faith in the future.
D
Detales
Guest
I agree, Granny, that these are fundamentally crucial questions. What I find unfortunate is that most people appear to consider them only through their parochially acquired limited personal belief lenses, never going to wider and more inclusive Universal Principles.
B
Benadam
Guest
Thank you itinerant . I understand now why you used the term material substrate.
G
grannymh
Guest
Before I started studying the spiritual soul of the human person, I would simply say that my soul is that which connects me to God. This connection is a two-way, sacred relationship.
My soul wills the highest good which would be union with God eternally. On His part, God recognizes me being me and in spite of my shortcomings loves the person I am. Thus, God accepts me whether I seek him through limited personal beliefs or through wider universal principles. In my humble opinion, what is truly fortunate is that by either avenue I can come to God Who welcomes me personally.
Blessings,
granny
All human life is sacred.
I
itinerant1
Guest
“The dust returns to the earth from which it came, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.” (Eccl 12:7)
Naturalism is a point of view that consists essentially in looking upon nature as the one original and fundamental source of all that exists, and hence attempts to explain everything in terms of nature (For a fuller explanation, see Naturalism )
Concerning the human mind, naturalism attempts to explain everything in terms of the neuro-physiological processes of the brain. This tendency is characteristic of the proponents of metaphysical materialism, double-aspect theory, epiphenomenalism and behaviorism.
However, we can see that the account of mind proffered by naturalism is clearly absurd in that they assert that an action is and is not a particular process at the same time. That is, the physiologist can accurately describe the function of the human body including the brain. But no part of that description describes consciousness, thought, sensation, feelings, or imagination. Physiologists or brain researchers are providing more and more detailed description of physiological processes. And if we ask them to describe thought or imagination, they have nothing more to add, yet they adamantly claim the mind is strictly a function of the brain states.
Nonetheless, if thinking were merely resultant of certain physiological processes they would be identical with the complexus of these processes, and any physiological description would be a description of thought, and so on. But this is clearly not the case. Anyone’s description of their conscious mental activities bear no resemblance whatsoever to the physical descriptions provided by the physiologist.
Here is where we must highlight the failed logic of naturalism, which is nothing more than an unwarranted reductionism. The reduction of mind to brain states is based on the naturalist’s logical fallacy. The naturalist assumes that he has already established the basic character of the world in which consciousness arises. So, when he comes to account for human consciousness he forces his account into terms that fit his preconceived notions about the nature of reality.
The logical fallacy the naturalist commits, which is an inductive fallacy, is to favor certain kinds of data over other equally evident kinds of data. The naturalist favors the phenomenal data provided by the natural sciences, while subordinating the data of human experience, which includes reflective consciousness, conceptual thinking, free will, religion, science itself, and so on.
However, the mysteries of the human mind will forever elude the naturalist who has limited himself to physiological descriptions.
Naturalism is a point of view that consists essentially in looking upon nature as the one original and fundamental source of all that exists, and hence attempts to explain everything in terms of nature (For a fuller explanation, see Naturalism )
Concerning the human mind, naturalism attempts to explain everything in terms of the neuro-physiological processes of the brain. This tendency is characteristic of the proponents of metaphysical materialism, double-aspect theory, epiphenomenalism and behaviorism.
However, we can see that the account of mind proffered by naturalism is clearly absurd in that they assert that an action is and is not a particular process at the same time. That is, the physiologist can accurately describe the function of the human body including the brain. But no part of that description describes consciousness, thought, sensation, feelings, or imagination. Physiologists or brain researchers are providing more and more detailed description of physiological processes. And if we ask them to describe thought or imagination, they have nothing more to add, yet they adamantly claim the mind is strictly a function of the brain states.
Nonetheless, if thinking were merely resultant of certain physiological processes they would be identical with the complexus of these processes, and any physiological description would be a description of thought, and so on. But this is clearly not the case. Anyone’s description of their conscious mental activities bear no resemblance whatsoever to the physical descriptions provided by the physiologist.
Here is where we must highlight the failed logic of naturalism, which is nothing more than an unwarranted reductionism. The reduction of mind to brain states is based on the naturalist’s logical fallacy. The naturalist assumes that he has already established the basic character of the world in which consciousness arises. So, when he comes to account for human consciousness he forces his account into terms that fit his preconceived notions about the nature of reality.
The logical fallacy the naturalist commits, which is an inductive fallacy, is to favor certain kinds of data over other equally evident kinds of data. The naturalist favors the phenomenal data provided by the natural sciences, while subordinating the data of human experience, which includes reflective consciousness, conceptual thinking, free will, religion, science itself, and so on.
However, the mysteries of the human mind will forever elude the naturalist who has limited himself to physiological descriptions.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Prehistoric man, having no access to libraries containing reference books on “Universal Principles,” noted the difference between live cow and dead cow. The difference was not to be found in the cow’s physical makeup – all the parts were still there – yet what he experienced was profoundly different.
D
Detales
Guest
Yes, there is a U.P. for you: Things live and die. Generalized to oneself, it might start a train of thought. What is the root meaning of “animal?”
S
StAnastasia
Guest
“Anima” - soul
S
Sair
Guest
As it happens, I’ve been reflecting on this very question, on and off, for some years now. I was actually going to start a thread about dualism myself until I saw this one.
For most of my life so far, I believed implicitly in the existence of souls, which I conceived as being a spiritual ‘essence’ that infuses living beings. I never bought into the notion that other animals don’t have souls, since it seemed impossible to me that such a vibrant and engaging creature as a dog, for example, did not have the same essence of life that I had, or that any human had. I gather this is not the proper Catholic concept of a soul, though!
Belief in souls was one of the last things to go in my journey towards atheism, and to be perfectly honest, I’m still not completely convinced one way or the other, although I do tend to lean towards monism, simply because that seems to me to be the more likely of the two beliefs to be true. Not that monism is an essential aspect of atheism - far from it, as any Buddhist would attest - but within the scope of my knowledge and experience, including anything I’ve read on the subject, I just can’t find any compelling reasons to suppose that we are made up of anything other than natural substances and functions. In which part of the body does the soul reside? In the brain? Or does it suffuse the whole body? If the latter, why does all evidence of consciousness cease when the brain ceases to function?
What I wonder, mostly, is why so many dualists seem totally convinced that biological processes alone could not possibly account for things like rational thought, creativity and love. How do you know? Arthur C Clarke proposed that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic; could it be also that any sufficiently complex biological process is indistinguishable from supernatural phenomena? It is, after all, quite true that we don’t yet even know, much less fully understand, all the ways in which the brain functions and interacts with the rest of the body. Furthermore, if I may borrow the anthropic principle from physicists and cosmologists, it could be said that of course our biological makeup must necessarily be of a kind to give rise to consciousness, otherwise we wouldn’t even be asking these questions!
The phrase, “we are more than the sum of our parts” is sometimes brought up in this context, mostly by people who accuse monists - and particularly naturalists - of being ‘reductionist’ in their thinking. What I want to know is, what exactly does it mean to ‘reduce’ someone to the structures and functions of their physical body? I would say that of course we are more than the sum of our parts - we are, indeed, the product of our parts and their various interactions. Does your average dualist, I wonder, ever stop to think of the sheer complexity of the human animal? Or consider that our behaviour is as much a matter of instinct and subconscious programming as it is rational, conscious choice?
The final question I would ask of dualists is this - what do you suppose our experience would be like if we didn’t have a soul? How would we know the difference? This gets right to the guts of the problem, in that we can - obviously - only perceive things from our own perspective, ultimately. How do we examine ourselves objectively from the inside?
For most of my life so far, I believed implicitly in the existence of souls, which I conceived as being a spiritual ‘essence’ that infuses living beings. I never bought into the notion that other animals don’t have souls, since it seemed impossible to me that such a vibrant and engaging creature as a dog, for example, did not have the same essence of life that I had, or that any human had. I gather this is not the proper Catholic concept of a soul, though!
Belief in souls was one of the last things to go in my journey towards atheism, and to be perfectly honest, I’m still not completely convinced one way or the other, although I do tend to lean towards monism, simply because that seems to me to be the more likely of the two beliefs to be true. Not that monism is an essential aspect of atheism - far from it, as any Buddhist would attest - but within the scope of my knowledge and experience, including anything I’ve read on the subject, I just can’t find any compelling reasons to suppose that we are made up of anything other than natural substances and functions. In which part of the body does the soul reside? In the brain? Or does it suffuse the whole body? If the latter, why does all evidence of consciousness cease when the brain ceases to function?
What I wonder, mostly, is why so many dualists seem totally convinced that biological processes alone could not possibly account for things like rational thought, creativity and love. How do you know? Arthur C Clarke proposed that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic; could it be also that any sufficiently complex biological process is indistinguishable from supernatural phenomena? It is, after all, quite true that we don’t yet even know, much less fully understand, all the ways in which the brain functions and interacts with the rest of the body. Furthermore, if I may borrow the anthropic principle from physicists and cosmologists, it could be said that of course our biological makeup must necessarily be of a kind to give rise to consciousness, otherwise we wouldn’t even be asking these questions!
The phrase, “we are more than the sum of our parts” is sometimes brought up in this context, mostly by people who accuse monists - and particularly naturalists - of being ‘reductionist’ in their thinking. What I want to know is, what exactly does it mean to ‘reduce’ someone to the structures and functions of their physical body? I would say that of course we are more than the sum of our parts - we are, indeed, the product of our parts and their various interactions. Does your average dualist, I wonder, ever stop to think of the sheer complexity of the human animal? Or consider that our behaviour is as much a matter of instinct and subconscious programming as it is rational, conscious choice?
The final question I would ask of dualists is this - what do you suppose our experience would be like if we didn’t have a soul? How would we know the difference? This gets right to the guts of the problem, in that we can - obviously - only perceive things from our own perspective, ultimately. How do we examine ourselves objectively from the inside?
G
grannymh
Guest
Hi Sair,
Good to see you. Hope I can keep up with your thinking.
Speaking as a reformed Cartesian [extreme] dualist, working on your questions may turn out to be a sticky wicket since I am concerned about the current ban on evolution. Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads
On the other hand, it could be a great philosophical adventure. One I am looking forward to after I return home.
Blessings,
granny
Spring is the answer to the question --Is there a future?
- Status